Sunday, 11 March 2012

Do pressure groups undermine democracy?

Do pressure groups undermine democracy? By Victoria Whight

To assess the claim that pressure groups
undermine democracy we must first understand the characterisation of what we
mean by a pressure group as there are many different interpretations and
definitions. We must also
understand why and how they form and how they function within a democratic
system to define their purpose. It is also useful to look at the principles and
ethos of what a democracy is to fully appreciate if the there is a clear
boundary between them or if they rely on one another to function.

A
pressure group is ‘an organised
group that seeks to influence government policy or protect or advance a
particular cause or interest.’[1]
Pressure groups come in lots of formats, the main two being casual pressure
groups and sectional interest groups. Casual pressure groups ‘promote a
particular set of economic/ political objectives or ideas.’[2]
These groups include the very well known names such as, Greenpeace, Countryside
Alliance, Fair Trade and Age Concern. Sectional Interest groups ‘represent
common interests of a particular section of society, Membership is often
closed.’[3]
These groups include Trade Unions Congress, Country Landowners, National
Farmers Union and The Law Society. These groups form when like-minded people
pull together to address an issue or cause that affects them. The aim of this
essay is to look at whether pressure groups undermine democracy, if both
arguments are valid and which argument is the strongest.

Pressure groups give the general public a chance
to get involved in politics and communicate with politicians as they ‘seek to influence policy-making and
public opinion.’ [4] They can be
‘ a sign of a healthy liberal democracy with an active citizen body’[5]
as they encourage freedom of speech, equality and diversity. After all a
democracy ‘is a form of government
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by
them.’[6]
However from the New Right perspective, pressure groups ‘campaigning activity
distracts government from the pursuit of the general interest’.[7]
Pressure groups main form of
achieving what they want is to lobby Members of Parliament, EU Politicians and
Civil Servants, to appeal to the sympathetic side of MP’s and the major
influence held by EU politicians. Lobbying is ‘attempting to influence
government leaders to create legislation or conduct an activity that will help
a particular organisation.’[8]
Therefore, depending on the view, the individual pressure groups can be seen to
undermine or support democracy. Due to the fact that pressure groups can lobby
this could cause internal disruption, an increase in corruption through bribery
as well as putting certain MP’s under pressure from external sources, such as
the Media.

The New Right is ‘an ideological trend within
conservatism that embrace a blend of market individualism and social
authoritarianism.’[9] Market individualism is ‘individual
freedom in economic enterprise that should not be restricted by governmental or
social regulation’[10] and social
authoritarianism is ‘an action which involves the intervention of government or
an organisation in social affairs.’[11]
New right theorists believe that humans are selfish and ‘all human activity is
self-interested’ [12], therefore
when pressure groups campaign for an issue it is to pursue their own interest
and not in the interest of the general public. This makes policy
decision-making difficult for the government and may mean that a high
proportion of the population disagrees with the outcome. This causes ‘the
misuse of taxpayers’ money’[13]
which in turn causes tensions between the government and the public. New right
theorists were big supporters of Margaret Thatcher who agreed with these views
and made it publicly known once she came into power.

Margaret Thatcher very strongly
disliked some pressure groups and on many occasions’ she publicly showed her
dislike, saying ‘close cooperation between government and pressure groups was
neither democratic nor functional, giving too much political power to private,
narrow interests’[14]. More
recent events show that this statement would appear to be true, especially as
in 1994 when ‘United Biscuits, one of the Conservative Party’s largest
corporate donors, was among the companies that successfully ‘persuaded’ the
Conservative Government to scrap the restrictions on the movement of heavy
lorries in London, therefore the public interest in less pollution was blocked
by large sectional interests.’[15]

Trade unions were among the largest
pressure groups before Margaret Thatcher came into power. She disliked the
trade unionists immensely, as she believed they destroyed the three governments
before her and they paralysed work during their strikes. Edward Heath was the first Prime
Minister to come into conflict with them; he tried to set up a prices and
incomes policy. ‘His attempts to legislate against unofficial strikes led to
internal disputes.’[16] Margaret
Thatcher believed the pressure group had too much power and she did all she
could to crush them because she felt they were a threat to her power. During
her leadership ‘coal mining in the UK was destroyed, unemployment more than
doubled, and trade unions were broken.’[17]
The miner’s strike was the main confrontation between Thatcher and trade
unions, however over twelve months no strikes were successful, this was due to
her policy on reducing the power that trade unions can have on the government.
She famously once stated, ‘We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands.
We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to
fight and more dangerous to liberty.’[18]

However, long before Margaret Thatcher there
were major political theorists who also saw pressure groups undermining
democracy. Hobbes and Rousseau ‘argue
that, far from being a symptom of democratic vitality, pressure groups
undermine democracy’.[19]Pressure
groups that are wealthy and have large financial resources behind them can be
seen to gain greater political influence and this is seen as unequal and
therefore undemocratic.

On the other hand, pressure groups can be seen
to help democracy as they are not seeking power, they are aiming to represent
the people, hence ‘there can be no doubt that pressure groups, taken together,
are a far more important channel of communication than parties for the
transmission of political ideas from the mass of the citisenry to their rulers.’[20]
Pressure groups ‘very right to exist is based on a fundamental democratic principle-
freedom of association.’[21]

Pressure groups can be better for democracy
than political parties as they are not power hungry for example the government
wants to achieve an increase in nuclear power stations as it will increase
economic activity, even if ‘uranium mining causes environmental contamination,
cancers and nuclear waste.’[22]The
‘campaign for nuclear disarmament’ is a global pressure group that aims to
represent and protect the people; within the UK it is focusing on the removal
of nuclear power due to the possible destruction it could cause to the mass
population as well as the future environmental implications.

Liberal Pluralists believe that ‘the expression
of diverse opinions is the only way to promote the cause of truth’[23],
therefore they argue, ‘Pressure groups serve the three very important
democratic functions of political participation, political representation and
political education’.[24]
Pressure groups can be seen to go hand in hand with democracy as they give the
general pubic a form of participating in the political process. This also
increases the representation of areas of the public meaning the government have
a wider view of what policies benefit most people. This means that pressure
groups should be allowed to act, form and argue freely, otherwise they are not
within a democracy, it would be seen as a dictatorship because ‘under
dictatorship freedom is normally suppressed, in democracy it is fundamental’.[25]

Overall, there are arguments on both sides, for
and against, about pressure groups
and democracy. It could be argued
that pressure groups are an added form of participation and representation as they
are a measure of public opinion. Pressure groups can provide expertise and
advice to politicians’ which is seen to enhance democracy. However the fact
that trade unions were able to cause internal disputes between three
governments also shows that they are potentially unhealthy for democracy.

In conclusion my opinion is that I do not see
that pressure groups undermine democracy. Instead I think that they underpin
the whole philosophy of democratic society in constantly challenging its very
perspective and are a very important part of the process of having a democratic
system. Pressure groups are the voice for the minority as well as the majority;
they give a voice to those who would not normally have one, encouraging the
democracy to develop in its main features of equality and freedom.

1 comment:

Pressure groups show that within our society with still have freedom of speech, which is a vital part of a democratic society. This is a lovely piece and I agree with you that pressure groups support the ideas of democracy! Can't wait for your next update..

New York 2011

Thailand 2010

About Me

Graduate of International Relations with Politics from Nottingham Trent University. Current Masters student at Maastricht University, studying Globalisation and Development Studies. Interested in anything political or to do with current global issues.